Is chastity possible?
Have you ever heard of chastity jewelry?
According to an article by Sasha Riddle called “Pure promise: Rings gain popularity with teens,” a movement began in the 1990s when girls started wearing chastity rings to signify a commitment to abstaining from sex until marriage. Thousands of girls across the United States are wearing the symbols on their left ring finger with the idea that they will remain abstinent until it is replaced with a wedding ring. “On their wedding day they will give their rings to their husband. It is not an end, but a continuation to a life of purity.” Hutton, one of those interviewed is quoted as saying.
It’s an interesting practice I hadn’t heard about.
In an age when surveys claim large numbers of young people are engaging in some type of sexual activity long before they’re ready for marriage, it can be tough for a teen to come out from the crowd and say, “I’m waiting for the right person.” And that’s why this article on a group of teens caught my attention. These girls don’t think abstinence is an out-grown concept. They want a relationship they can trust, and they believe this is the route to that goal.
This isn’t the first time I’ve thought about these ideas. A young woman I knew years ago occasionally slept with her boyfriend and she was confused about whether he loved her or not. She also felt guilty about having intimate relations with him while dating. She didn’t really want to do it, but she did because it was what he wanted. She worried she would lose him if she said no.
She came to me as a Christian Science practitioner to help her sort out these issues. I mentioned to her that she didn’t need to feel guilty about saying no to intercourse until marriage. True love is not dependent upon having sex because love is a spiritual power two people share with each other that transcends any physical hook up. “You want to know if he really loves you for spiritual reasons before committing your whole life to him,” I said.
How will I know if he truly loves me? she asked.
“One way,” I answered, “is to hold off on the sex and see if he still treats you with tenderness, care and affection. If he truly loves you, he’ll wait on the intercourse until you get married.”
“It’s a minimal short term price to pay for a long run benefit. You need to know to the bottom of your heart if he truly loves you at a spiritual level, and not just for your body, because if he’s interested in you primarily for your body, it’s not enough for a good relationship. You don’t want to learn the hard way what his true feelings are for you.”
In this case, the woman opted to stop giving into her boyfriend’s sexual overtures. He got mad and upset. She soon saw an angry side to him she had never seen before, and began to rethink the whole relationship. It became apparent that he had a self-control problem, and she decided they weren’t meant for each other. They eventually parted ways, and she was happier, and maybe even safer, for it.
Now I realize that not all relationships that include a physical component end on a negative note. But in my practice as a spiritual healer, I’ve seen many times when couples break-up miserably with broken hearts and deeply hurt feelings, often because the relationship was based largely on physical attraction rather than deeper spiritual peace and joy.
There are real spiritual benefits to finding true love with another — spiritual love — before allowing the physical senses to overwhelm one’s perspective with the emotional sensations that come along with sex. A long lasting and healthy relationship is based on a foundation that stands the test of time, trial, and temptation.
As many people figure out, love and sex are not the same thing. People can have sex and love the sex, but not love each other. And people can love each other deeply without having sex.
Whether we abstain from sex before marriage or not, we can never be separated from our God-given purity that is permanently embedded into our being. God made each of us spiritual, and keeps us that way forever. No sexual act can touch our heavenly self that is forever ours. But a life of purity, self-control, and wisdom cements positive ways of living into our experience and protects us from going down a path we may later regret.
Chastity is a quality that enables one to feel closer to God and that can seem hard when you’re swept away by the physical sensations of sex. Chastity promotes deep-rooted joy, permanent peace, and self-control while feeling close to the divine. These are qualities which contribute to a healthy and enduring relationship once two people have committed to each other for the long run.
“Chastity is the cement of civilization and progress,” Mary Baker Eddy wrote in Science and Health. Chastity means abstaining from sex for moral and spiritual reasons, and the word “civilization” refers to “a society that has a high level of culture,” according to Encarta.
Don’t most of us aspire to having some degree of “civilization and progress,” morality and culture, in our lives?
I’m married and don’t need to run out to buy a chastity ring, but I do respect the motive and desire of the group of teenagers mentioned above who are striving to sort out what constitutes genuine love and how to live true to their high ideals.
In their lives, abstinence is possible before marriage. It’s something to think about. We can always learn from others and this group of teens has a thought-provoking message to share.
What do you think?
by Evan Mehlenbacher

Français
Español
Deutsch
Ken Says:
Hi Evan,
“No sexual act can touch our heavenly self that is forever ours. ” – an interesting statement but perhaps not truth.
The sexual act was given to us by God to enjoy, to celebrate and to enable us to join together in a very spiritual way. Chastity is not necessary to achieve high spiritual levels and having sex will not stop us from achieving these high levels.
Thanks for listening.
Evan Says:
Hi Ken,
Interesting thought!
When I wrote, “No sexual act can touch our heavenly self that is forever ours,” I was thinking more of the negative aspects of sex. For example, if someone was forced into the act against their will, or, it they did consent, but later regretted the action and felt guilty. When this happens, we need to know that no matter what happened in the past, its what God knows about us spiritually today that really matters. We each have a pure spiritual individuality that cannot be tarnished or sullied by unfortunate human circumstances of the past.
I agree that having sex will not stop us from achieving a a high spiritual level, but have to say, that the more our thinking is truly on a spiritual level, not dependent upon a physical act like sex for stimulation, the easier it is to feel close to Spirit, to infinite divine Love–a very very spiritual place in thought to be.
The quieter our material senses, the louder our spiritual senses…
Agatha Says:
Hi Ken,
I think God has nothing to do with physicality and knows nothing about sex. Therefore sex can never bring us close to God.
been there Says:
Every long term relationship, at some point, is going to be affected by something — grief, crime, illness, job transfer, war, accident — any of which could make for a situation where one of the partners cannot or does not want to engage in intercourse. Working through the abstinence issues before something rotten happens can be a source of strength when people DO find themselves confronted with life challenges. Sex is a great gift, yeah, but having the love of a life-partner that is unconditional and totally NOT dependent on having sex is an even greater one.
Agatha Says:
Hi Ken,
The sexual act can never enable us to join together in a very spiritual way. Sex is the fulfilling of material lust and is the opposite of spirituality.
Anonymous Says:
I think this is a really good point:
“Sex is a great gift, yeah, but having the love of a life-partner that is unconditional and totally NOT dependent on having sex is an even greater one.”
To me sex is a human thing. It’s not a bad thing in and of itself — and it can be tender and loving, but I don’t think it’s ever brought me closer to God or taught me anything spiritual.
George Says:
The definition of “chastity” is currently more like total celibacy, abstinence. Using the 1828 Webster dictionary to see what Mrs. Eddy meant, it is defined as “free from all unlawful commerce of the sexes”. I think of this as free from promiscuity.
Evan Says:
Hi George,
I like the distinction you make! This is very helpful for most people. Jesus said we do not marry in heaven, but are as the angels. That type of existence would imply absolute chastity in the strictest sense. But until we realize Life in Spirit, in heaven, we demonstrate chastity in degrees. It’s really a state of Mind, of the divine Mind, that is pure and holy, not governed by mindless or random impulse, but permeated with genuine love, care and uplifting spirituality. This kind of love does not end up hurting people, but blessing them.
Olivia Says:
Having had premarital sexual relationships that bit the dust in my younger, insecure days, I can honestly say that, for me, I am most at peace, most unselfish, most joyful, and most able to heal myself and others through spiritual (non-material) means when I’m thinking and acting with the pure heart of a child. That’s how Jesus told us we’d reach heaven — harmony. By being childlike. And that’s what spirituality is, to me. Childlike innocence is inherently wise, harmless and unharmable.
So, in my experience, sexual gratification was a series of blind curves that caused me to crash more than once on my road to childlikeness.
Evan Says:
To Olivia, yes I’ve seen similar effects in other people’s lives. I saw part of a movie last night where two single young people got heavily involved sexually, and then eventually the novelty wore off and they parted ways, feelig empty and lost. This type of scenario happens too often. There is a confusion between what true love really is and the physical sensations that come from sex. They are not the same thing. When we find true Love, it lasts forever…and what a good experience it is!
Anonymous Says:
I can see clearly that sex before marriage is not a good thing, but I also struggle to understand why it is okay in marriage. In Christian Science, we learn that there is no pain or pleasure in matter. It seems like you can’t have it both ways, even in marriage. If you’re enjoying having pleasure in matter, than somewhere you have to accept that you will experience pain in matter too. So why not shoot for no sex at all? Isn’t that the best way to go for spiritual growth?
Another question I had was about Jesus. There is much talk about the supposed Gospel according to Mary Magdalene and that Jesus had a child with her. Many Christian Scientists say if that were true, it would tear the foundation of Christian Science, but I don’t think it would make any difference whether Jesus had a child or not. People want him to be pure and perfect, but he was human too. Also, we will never know if he had sexual relations or not. What sayest thou?
Evan Says:
To anon above,
You make some interesting observations that are worthy of earnest consideration! I believe most, if not all married couples, learn eventually, if not quickly, that unbridled sex in marriage is not such a good thing either. And for the very reasons you mention. The more we accept pleasure in matter, the more we are indulging the belief of sensation in matter, which lays thought just as open to pain as to pleasure. To grow spiritually, we have to discipline the affections of the flesh, and give ourselves the mental space we need to really feel the presence of Spirit, which is above physical sensation. For those who still can’t imagine life without sex, marriage is a protection for them for many reasons, and for other people. Marriage requires one to fully face all the consequences of one’s actions and not run away from them, which is healthy. Husband and wife can grow together in understanding the higher joys of Soul which come from increased spiritual love.
On the rumor of Jesus being married to Mary, I haven’t read anything that truly documents that. From what I’ve read, it’s speculation and theorizing–at best. I’ve never worried about whether Jesus had sex or not. It never occured to me compared to the larger issues of his crucifixion, resurrection, healing the sick, raising the dead, and later ascending.
Jesus Christ was pure and perfect in Truth. Just like we are!! And that will never change.
Anonymous Says:
Do you have to believe in the Bible to be a Christian Scientist? Christian Science in itself sounds very good, but I just can’t believe the stuff in the Bible; like all the miracles, people turning into pillars of salt and bushes burning and Jesus ascending into heaven. I know they take the “inspired Word of the Bible” but from what i can, not much of the Bible is inspiring because the Bible lesson covers the same old citations it seems. I would say less than .5% of the Bible is used in the lessons. So can you still believe the principles of Christian Science and doubt the Bible?
Millicent Says:
From what i believe i think its impossible to believe in Christian Science without comparing it to the bible or believing in the bible.Sure the bible may seem confusing and ancient to some people but remember that the bible lesson is based on the bible stories esp.about what Jesus did and that the bible has more figurative meanings rather than material meanings e.g.My understanding on what Jesus meant when he appeared to his disciples while they were fishing and said cast the rod on the other side he really meant that take the right path to life.And the other miracles in the bible I believe they still happen
today.So i think the bible esp.The New Testament was the foundation of most religions including Christian Science.
Evan Says:
To #13 above,
You have a great question, and one I’ve been asked many times by other doubters of the Bible.
You ask if one can believe in CS and doubt the Bible. I’d say yes. But then qualify my answer.
Why? CS is universal Truth and Love. One can catch a glimpse of pure Truth and Love, even gain significant understanding of it, without knowing much about the Bible. Think about Jesus’ time or before. Prophets and disciples didn’t have the New Testament then, but they still had a very substantial understanding of Truth and Love. Jesus said there was more to come, and it did come later in the form of the Comforter revealing the full Truth through CS, but nonetheless, it’s evidence that Truth is really a revelation coming from God, more than from anywhere else.
But I have found the Bible to be a tremendous aide in understanding Truth. It speeds up my learning of Truth because I’m studying the writings of others who already gained deep insights that I have yet to gain. It makes my progress much quicker to learn from their experiences.
As far as many of the stories that seem hard to swallow or believe, the key to success there is to look for the meaning. Focus on the meaning, not on the literal event. I think you’ll find that as you study CS, as taught in Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, by Mary Baker Eddy, that CS will open the Bible to you in its right light, and the stories will start to make more sense.
Patience will pay off in your effort to understand the Bible better.
Anonymous Says:
That is a good answer to a good question. How about that part of the question that asked why so little of the Bible is included in the Lesson? My mom was a second reader in the church and I noticed that also: that it’s the same passages used over and over. You could see that in three years, most of it was unmarked for the lesson. Could the Bible be so uninspiring that only such a small percentage is of use to Christian Science? And then I know other friends from other denominations and their church really goes into every book of the Bible and know it in and out. I would say overall, Christian Science puts much less emphasis on Bible study as a whole.
I do get tired of hearing the same stories over and over in the Bible during the church services. I have often wondered why so little of the Bible is used.
Evan Says:
To anon above,
You have some interesting comments, and I’ve heard it both ways. I’ve heard people from other churches attend a CS service and say they’re impressed with how much we use the Bible. Sermons in many churches are often based on a Bible verse or two, whereas in the CS service, dozens of verses are used and referenced in the sermon.
I’ve never been to another church service that used more of the Bible than the CS service uses, and I’ve attended a few other denominations.
There are Bible study groups that delve deeply into the Bible, and I know Christian Scientists who have studied in those groups. For myself, I’ve seen that the study groups often get deeply involved with customs, traditions, and beliefs of the times, which can be very helpful in some cases, but can be overkill too. I have found the best study of the Bible has come from my study of “Science and Health.” It really has. I pick up customs and traditions from various articles and books I read now and then, but “Science and Health,” has really helped me understand the spiritual meaning of the Bible the best, which is the most important meaning.
The CS lesson-sermon is not meant to teach the Bible, per say. A student of CS studies the Bible above and beyond the lesson-sermon. The lesson-sermon is on a topic for the week. I like to read books of the Bible on my own and study then. I find that the most helpful.
CS is a self-regulated study, really. No one is telling you what to do, what to study or how you have to conduct your spiritual life. It’s up to the student to make those decisions. And I like that part, honestly! I like to work out my choices with God’s direction. So, it depends upon individual initiative to learn the Bible, and there are a number of ways you can do that. The Bible is very inspiring, and the gold is there to be mined by those willing to dig in and find it.
In reference to the number of Bible references used in the lesson-sermon, I have not done any scientific study, but have found the lesson-sermon, read over the years, has quite thoroughly prepared me to talk with just about anyone on the Bible. I’m not good at quoting chapter and verse, like some are, but there is little that I am not familiar with. And I attribute that knowledge to regular study of the lesson-sermon. So, perhaps, each person’s experience with the lesson-sermon is a bit different…
Hope that helps.
Jim Says:
In comment #8 above Evan wrote:
“Jesus said we do not marry in heaven, but are as the angels. That type of existence would imply absolute chastity in the strictest sense.”
When Christian Scientists, and for the most part Christians in general, discuss sex it is the “sensual” part of if that is derided. Indeed, I find a real fear of sex among Christian Scientists that is passed off as spirituality. In my experience, sex is 90% mental and 10% physical, so I never experience sex as merely physical gratification. For me sex is an expression of intimacy.
Make no mistake, sex does not create intimacy, but intimacy can be beautifully expressed sexually. It is no different from a flower. A flower is not beauty, but an expression of beauty, and on this mental plane we experience that beauty through our senses of sight, smell, and touch. If it is wrong to experience intimacy through the senses, it is equally wrong to experience beauty through those same senses.
I don’t know how you can have real intimacy without opening yourself completely to another person. So when you say that in heaven there is complete chastity you imply that in heaven there is no intimacy! But I’m not sure that this is the only way to interpret Jesus’ words. Might he have been suggesting that in heaven, intimacy between individuals is not limited to paired-off couples, but that intimacy is universal? If we all have one Mind, and that Mind is our common source, how could it be otherwise?
I think we have marriage here on Earth to manage the selfish aspects of relationships, such as possessiveness, jealousy, and for the security of family groupings, which really have little to do with sex or intimacy. In heaven, where our unity and universal love should be evident, there should be no need for such things, but there would still be a place for intimacy.
Jean Says:
You really made me think, Jim. I think your experiences are probably closer to the ideal on the human scene and a lot of peoples sexual experiences are more than 10% physical. and not real intimacy.
Evan Says:
Here’s a new take on intimacy…
in-to-me-see … intimacy!
The ultimate intimacy is seeing, beholding, valuing and honoring the beautiful, loving, precious, wholesome child of God in another.
Is this the kind of intimacy, and very spiritual I believe, that bonds two people into one genuine love…which is what marriage should fulfill when done right?
Susie Says:
I find among some Christian Scientists a real love of God, His commandments and morality. I think that’s what makes them seek the kind of true spiritual intimacy that Evan describes, before they get married and/or have sex. I wouldn’t call that fear, I would call that true love, wisdom and strength, and I admire them for it.
Anonymous Says:
I know people who have hid behind spirituality because of fear — not all of them Christian Scientists, mind you. I don’t think we should really debate that point, though, because what really counts is what’s happening in our own individual lives. We should leave other people’s lives to them to sort out.
Stacy Says:
Evan –
What do you think about sex being both a physical and spiritual thing? What does that mean to you? And how do we go about getting the sex to be about something more mental than physical? That seems like it would be more satisifying, but to be honest, sex seems like it just demands so much physical attention.
Evan Says:
To Stacy,
You ask, “What do I think about sex being both a physical and spiritual thing?”
I think in your question you may also be asking, “What do I think about making love as being both a physical and spiritual thing?” Perhaps??
I think see sex, in and of itself, as a physical act and sensation. You can have love without sex, and you can have sex without love.
I see love as spiritual coming from God, not from the brain or a nerve ending.
Lovers may express love toward each other while engaging in sex, but the true love felt is coming from a spiritual source. And if it’s true, lasts long after the sex is finished.
Does that help?
Anonymous Says:
I take that to mean physical sex can never be spiritual. Is that right?
I was thinking about this. Man is really spiritual, but we seem to be material and mortal. The material and mortal have a glimpse of the real and spiritual, but it’s not complete or perfect. Mortals seem to have to reproduce, and voila, we have physical sex. I think of Mary Baker Eddy’s line, “sometimes beautiful, always erroneous”.
The irony of this is that physical sex can produce our children, which we love and cherish and would not give up for the world! (at least, I wouldn’t) And isn’t this the hardest thing to understand, that we are not creators of our children? I guess that’s how we get tied to this life in matter.
Stacy Says:
Thanks for explaining that, Evan. I think I understand, but I don’t see why you HAVE to be married to have sex express love. I don’t think that sex outside of marriage has pulled me down. I slept with a serious boyfriend when I wasn’t married, and then later I slept with a different man who became my husband. I think that I experienced different degrees of purity in both relationships at different times. It doesn’t seem like the difference was married vs. single. I do think that when sex isn’t sex, but love-making, it’s much more pure and satisfying. That doesn’t just happen when you’remarried, not in my life anyway.
a friend Says:
to Jim (18.) May I suggest that you are mixing between mental and spiritual? Yes, sex is mental and physical, but as Christian Science helped me to discover, our mental can be telling you some wrong messages about life, truth and love. Mary Baker Eddy call it “mortal mind”, or a mind that believe it lives in matter. How can you have sex without matter?..mmm? Well you cannot of course… Intimacy is a great thing but sex is only an illusive way of getting it. Well, at least in my own experience.
Jim Says:
Dear friend,
I think you misread me. I never said sex was a way of getting intimacy. I said sex was a way of expressing intimacy.
In all, I think too much time is spent on the debate over whether sex is good or evil, truth or error, spirit or matter. It just is what it is. And like anything else we do, regardless of the mental plane you happen to be on, you get out of it what you put into it.
Evan Says:
To #25 above,
Yes, I agree that the physical act of sex is not spiritual. But I do not view this truth as license to condemn or judge people who have sex in a spiritually progressive relationship.
As you also wrote, in this human experience the material and spiritual often appear mixed in with one another. This is because we all have so much to learn about ultimate Truth. As our understanding of Truth, and Love, continue to grow, we part with the sensual in degrees and embrace more and more of the spiritual. Each of us work this out individually and with God and I believe we are not to judge one another in the meantime.
Evan Says:
To #26 Stacy,
A thought-provoking statement you make when you wrote, “…I don’t see why you HAVE to be married for sex to express love!” You really got my mental wheels turning!! I like that…
Interestingly, I’ve never thought of sex as expressing love…in that order. I’ve always thought of it the other way around, in the order of, it two people love each other, that might have sex. But I’ve never seen love as dependent on sex, for I see love as totally spiritual.
I think the question you raise about having sex out of marriage has a lot of factors surrounding it to consider. It’s probably not the individual act of sex that gets many people into trouble, so much as all the baggage that comes with it. Getting sexually involved with someone who has not whole-heartedly committed to protecting your well being and truly watching out for you (aka marriage) can lead to many unwanted problems. Some of those troubles are broken-hearts, sexually transmitted diseases, unfulfilled promises, and a life-style that feels less than stable and secure. I know there are exceptions, but oftentimes patience, self-discipline, and temperance, even though involving short term sacrifice, can bring long term very generous rewards.
I know there is a lot to sort out here and discuss, but love, founded on a spiritual basis, and not a physical sensation, will endure. To test our relationship and be sure its based on spiritual love, and not upon sexual gratification, a waiting period of abstinence can be very helpful.
SANDRA Says:
I’M HAPPY A WEB PAGE LIKE THIS EXIST TO EDUCATE US ON THE NEED FOR A CHASTE LIFE AS CHRISTIANS
Olivia Says:
Evan, here are some questions I haven’t seen raised in this blog, or elsewhere. I ask them not in a spirit of judgment or of meddling in another’s marriage, but in the spirit of frank and open discussion and with a humble desire to see human affections (my own included!) everywhere enriched.
(1) It is always suggested that the spouse who wants less sex be understanding and not self-righteous (see “Love, Identity & Sexuality” articles in the Christian Science Sentinel of June 18). I can buy that. That’s the loving way to be. But why is the spouse who wants more sex the one who always gets the special consideration? Out of love, unmixed with lust, wouldn’t that partner desire to be equally understanding of the other’s need to abstain? Why does the “baser” of the two desires get the kid-glove treatment, the constant deference throughout a long marriage? Would that not be a subtle form of the very worldliness that hides childlike purity and impedes progress Spiritward?
(2) Why is the sexual act considered a human need that divine Love meets (see p. 494 of Science and Health)? If it were truly a need, wouldn’t everyone simply have to have it, whether married or not, whether child or adult? I believe food, water, air and sleep are the only physical requirements for staying alive. Other legitimate human needs include shelter, transportation, clothing, a job (or some way of paying bills). Non-physical needs include the desire to give and receive affection and respect. So, are we perhaps confusing essential human needs with pleasurable biological urges, which are designed for procreation purposes? I ask these questions because I take seriously and literally the author’s words on pages 61 and 62 of Science and Health: “The formation of mortals must greatly improve to advance mankind. The scientific morale of marriage is spiritual unity. If the propagation of a higher human species is requisite to reach this goal, then its material conditions can only be permitted for the purpose of generating. The foetus must be kept mentally pure and the period of gestation have the sanctity of virginity.” Why wouldn’t that radical, unselfish, spiritually liberating and divinely loving statement be just as important to every honest reader of Science and Health and earnest student of Christian Science as any other statement about spirituality versus sensuality in that book and the Bible?
(3) And if “need” is the operative word for sex, then where do we draw the line between so-called normal sexual urges and what might be considered abnormal ones — which might seem just as much a “need” to the person who experiences them? This slippery slope argument makes me think that our true human need, supported by divine Love, is to gradually relinquish first the perceived abnormal, then the perceived normal sensual desire, in exchange for the bliss of loving without desiring to express or receive that love through sex.
OK, I’ll close this with an uplifting, thought-provoking paragraph from the opening page of Mary Baker Eddy’s sermon, “The People’s Idea of God”:
“Every step of progress is a step more spiritual. The great element of reform is not born of human wisdom; it draws not its life from human organizations; rather is it the crumbling away of material elements from reason, the translation of law back to its original language, — Mind, and the final unity between man and God. The footsteps of thought, as they pass from the sensual side of existence to the reality and Soul of all things, are slow, portending a long night to the traveller; but the guardians of the gloom are the angels of His presence, that impart grandeur to the intellectual wrestling and collisions with old-time faiths, as we drift into more spiritual latitudes. The beatings of our heart can be heard; but the ceaseless throbbings and throes of thought are unheard, as it changes from material to spiritual standpoints.”
Your thoughts, Evan? Other readers?
Anonymous Says:
Good questions/points #32.
I think how often you have sex, if you have sex, etc. generally involves negotiation in any marriage. And the same individual may want more or less at different times in his/her life. I know that many of my friends weren’t at all interested when they were young parents. They just didn’t have the energy!
I don’t think it should be a matter of one person getting their way (the one who wants sex) and another having to give in (the one who doesn’t). I don’t think it’s right for one marriage partner to unilaterally decide they’re not going to have sex, either. I think you have to work out something that works for both individuals involved. That’s true about every other aspect of marriage, right?
And I can’t help but feel that if a lack of desire for sex comes from spiritual growth, that’s got to be a blessing and whatever blesses one, blesses all. So how could that good gift hurt someone else? Someone who you really love? Real healing is a harmonizer, not a divider. So I’d say that if the lack of desire is causing friction, more soul-searching might be needed.
That said, I don’t think that anyone should ever have to do something distasteful to them in this area. No one should have to grin and bear it to please someone else, because that’s not really pleasing to anyone anyway.
Olivia Says:
Response to #33. After I picked up Prose Works by Mary Baker Eddy this morning, not knowing what I would read, I suddenly decided out of the blue to check this thread. And I found your wise, practical thoughts. I then needed some spiritual inspiration to buttress your points, so I returned to Prose Works and opened it at random. Guess what was staring me in the face? These words on page 354 of Miscellaneous Writings: “Experience shows that humility is the first step in Christian Science, wherein all is controlled, not by man or laws material, but by wisdom, Truth, and Love.” And on the opposite page of that angel message I rediscovered “The Way” (pp 355-359), which I then read in light of this topic. It fits, perfectly! Consider this quote from the Bible: “Cast the beam out of thine own eye.” And these by Mrs. Eddy: “Humility … is indispensable to personal growth…” and “Human pride is human weakness.” Ah, so it isn’t a desire for sex by one spouse that is weak; it is resistance to being humble and loving that’s the real weakness! (Reminds me of Henry Drummond’s thoughts in “The Greatest Thing in the World” about temper being worse than sins of the flesh.) Get this: “The way is absolute divine Science: walk ye in it; but remember that Science is demonstrated by degrees, and our demonstration rises only as we rise in the scale of being.” What a direct, yet soft and gentle, reply to all my questions and comments above!
amy Says:
Olivia –
I love the spiritual points you’re sharing. Thank you so much.
Evan Says:
Hi Olivia,
From the above, it sounds like you’ve found answers to some of your questions. You are a very thoughtful person, I can tell by the cordial tone of your comments.
Per your other questions made in #32…
You wrote that “It is always suggested that the spouse who wants less sex be understanding…” That is a new one on me. I did not know that was the case, if it really is.
I think the greater issue in marriage is not one spouse caving into the other, but the two working together in harmony and love. That’s what marriage is all about–unifying in Love. The issue is not who gets what they want, either less sex or more sex, but how the whole issue is worked out, and hopefully in a spiritually progressive way. Each side should come out of the discussion, or prayer for resolution, a bit more humble, more compassionate, more thoughtful and considerate of the other. And if both sides are participating in the prayer, there is going to be a mutually agreeable solution to whatever the conflict was. If there is no agreement, the greater issue is not “who gets how much sex.” The greater issue is learning the true spirit of marriage to begin with, which almost always involves give and take on both sides. And to do this right, we must love unselfishly. The sex part is quite incidental to how the whole issue is worked out in the first place.
You ask “Why is the secual act considered a human need that divine Love meets (see p. 494 of Science and Health). On p. 494, I presumed you are referring to Eddy’s frequently used quote, “Divine Love always has met and always will meet every human need.” When I read this, it tells me that the human need is always spiritual. Nowhere in the quote does it say the primary human need is material or sexual. Divine Love is Spirit, and Spirit meets needs spiritually. In practical experience, when we meet the spiritual need, the human needs are automatically met as effect.
And on the issue of sexual “need,”…in absolute terms, there is no need, as you suggest. We have everything we need spiritually to live our eternal spiritual life. My sense of it is, that sexual “needs” is a mortal phenomenon that fades as one advances spiritually. Moderation and temperance are virtues that protect sexual urges from getting out of control in the meantime.
Hope that helps!
Lots of love,
Anonymous Says:
It’s wonderful that this type of guided discussion on such a powerful topic is now available, especially to those entering the early years of relationships. It was not available to those of us coming of age in the ’60s, a time of great loosening of traditional codes of conduct. Caught between our parents’ (especially mothers)overly-strict views and this loosening, many of us felt “bad” even for having desires arise. Such subjects were not discussed in Sunday School either, (no “good” CS young person would dare mention such a topic!) thus, we were left to navigate this rocky terrain on our own. Many of us were tricked by confusing the good qualities in ourselves and a boyfriend, along with the sex, into thinking that all of those powerful feelings were enough to base marriage on. Adding the sex merely confused seeing that in spite of the good qualities, this might not be the best partner.
Wynne Says:
Thanks Evan for this great article and everyone for working out some great questions and ideas. This is very helpful to me and I just wanted to express my gratitude
Gerves Says:
In think chastity is the onl best way to succeed in marriage.